Issue 168 Professional Jury's September 23, 2013

Many people in America dread getting that notice in the mail saying it is time for you to serve. Many go reluctantly, but still see it as a civic duty. Even I went to serve. Of course I fell asleep in the court room for a good 30 seconds before the Judge yelled at me, I was happy to go. But what if we had true professionals who are trained to be impartial? What would that be like?

Motivation: For one, having a professional jury would get rid of those individuals who serve reluctantly or fall asleep (like me). In other words we will have motivated people who wish to carry out justice. And we do need people who want to seek the truth. I believe that the people who choose to become a professional juror are those motivated to arrive at the best conclusion based on the facts presented in the case.

Advantages: Some clear advantages would come from the type of training these professionals would need to receive. They would have to know law up to a certain extent and as such be familiar with the terminology used in the court room. No more lawyers having to dumb down the language or jurors getting lost when a legal objection is presented. These professionals could keep up with the faster pace of a speedier trail and thus save the courts and the defendants money by making a traditionally long trial shorter. Basically, a professional juror would be a professional listener who could discern facts from conjecture.

Training: I believe a professional juror would need some sort of training. For the most part, I would have them trained in the basic terminology of the legal profession. This would be in an effort to reduce miscommunication in a court room between the lawyers and the jury. A professional juror would need training to discern facts from conjecture in a lawyer’s legal argument. Also, a basic knowledge of law would also aid in ensuring the professional jurors know and understand why an objection is being carried out, why something may be stricken from the record and so on. Finally they would have to be trained with the ability to turn off their opinions and become as impartial as possible. This last part is obvious as an impartial jury is the only true one that can give the best judgments (at least that is what we have come to believe). Basically all this training I feel is what amounts to a two year associates degree in college.

The lawyer’s wont like it: Lawyers in selecting jurors look to see who is most susceptible to their arguments. The opposition approves or disapproves the juror. Basically it is a game in trying to figure out which juror gives them the best chance of winning and ultimately a juror is chosen. This professional system would eliminate such a practice as much as possible. A lawyer does not want a truly impartial person and as such would be totally against this.

Conclusion: Professionals would require professional pay. Pay high enough to keep them on the job and also attract new people to take up the mantel of a professional juror. So something like $80,000 a year may be appropriate. Of course these individuals would need health care and a retirement package as well. The costs would be offset by not having to seek out as many people from around the country to serve on a jury and these professionals can serve on multiple cases at the same time (this is a possibility depending on how well they are trained). Overall, this is just an idea that may never take off. People have this idea that you need a jury made up of your peers. A professional juror would of course be one of your "peers," but people as a whole may not see it that way. It is a concept and that as they say is that.